You're such an American. You lack political literacy and you have no recollection of what you even said.

inb4 'thats not what i meant do you even nuance bro'

Nuance recalling what you said. You said that this evolution is ever constant there is no stability , so that stage of facism you are talking about so much in which your dick gets hard is ever lasting as it is constant revolution and progression as you described

>there is no stability

>so that stage of facism you are talking about so much in which your dick gets hard is ever lasting as it is constant revolution and progression as you described

Again, huge amnesia on your part.

Again: ***we don't want to kill anyone even for the sake of our principles; we only need to enslave their gods as far as that's concerned. __The problem is that the Communist movement is not yet powerful enough to do this, and this has never been true in history leading up to now.__ There are forces who won't listen to us and fight with us because we don't have the means of demonstrating to them that we can fight for them, and so they will fight us to protect their struggles regardless of how accurately they identify themselves as individuals and their struggles too.***

***I mean that Communism would not yet be powerful enough to establish a ground upon which mutual conflict resolution can take place and would therefore most likely need to fight violently. Again, notice how you still dodged the points about this conflict resolution.***

It's really fucking easy since I've demolished all of this before. At this point I'm copying and pasting in what I've previously typed with minimal editing.

**So no, saying that a revolution is never a 'constant' and static thing - i.e. that it is always changing - *does not make my politics the same as that of the Fascists*. The point of the abolition of both classes and more generally the politics where exclusive interests fight *as exclusive interests* rather than as part of a universal movement is that __there would be no need for conflicts to be resolved through the death and/or submission of one interest *exclusively* to another.__**

**I went further: I made it clear why Marxists distinguish between governance/governments and states - the difference relates to the kinds of force that they have to use.**

***Saying that one kind of abstract and frozen form of 'submission' is inevitable and a similarly-frozen state of heavenly 'freedom' is impossible __dodges the point__, because the freedom that I'm talking about is PROVISIONAL; it is something that must grow under Communism.***

Can I participate?

What is a debate on now?

Go ahead if you want. He is on his knees and his only move is to run in circles.

Let him cum from his position then.

Where he belongs he must take pleasure?

__***What makes it different from Fascism or even what you call 'fascism' is that Communists don't say 'freedom is impossible, why bother'. Instead, we say that the impossibility of your frozen idea of 'freedom' does not mean that concrete freedoms are impossible.***__

He does indeed.

He takes the position of the laughing child who supposedly knows what people think, using his own set of definitions which even the dictionaries and WIkipedia pages that he brings up do not support.

He is fascinated with frozen concepts which he assumes I'm using, ignoring the history-dependent and concrete nature of what I'm describing. For him, despite all the warnings about how his interpretations of words would lead to things which are usually true but trivially-so, __he continues to use these concepts to drag things out of my words which I did not say and went to great lengths to dispute on my own__.

***That's*** **what the slimy fucker means when he screams 'nuance!!!'.**

Even when I clearly say 'what you call 'fascism' can only ever be temporary in Communism', he jumps to 'your 'Communism' is 'fascism' because you said forever changing and provisional revolution' because he assumes that a state of affairs where 'fascism' (i.e. the need for organising and building a hegemony which must establish itself violently, i.e. *state politics*) will be inherent to politics because no nonviolent and mutual means of conflict resolution can ever exist according to him (which is in truth a third-positionist belief)!

Because his concepts are basic and they don't require any logic behind them. Is of assumed irrational.

What do you want from the poor man?

Stop torturing.

His soul.

Some people like it simple.

Let them be :))

Is of so easy to relax and everything is so clear.

If you forget of arguments and logic. Just assume concept.

Assumption > Arguments

@Garbage

Makes things easier?

You're not into making things easier, don't you? @Garbage

Lol, he isnt torturing me with his false assumptions and implications. I find him ammusing.

"He takes the position of the laughing child who supposedly knows what people think, using his own set of definitions which even the dictionaries and WIkipedia pages that he brings up do not support." I only brought forth the wiki to show your misunderstanding of concepts. @Garbage And you saying they disagree with me is just your opinion. "That's what the slimy fucker means when he screams 'nuance!!!'." Youa re the person who keeps screaming nuance, does this makes you "the slimy fucker"?

I spy a dodge.

I spy with my little eye

Something beginning with f